Gnolls...humaniod? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Gnolls...humaniod? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Jeriaus
06-09-07, 12:00 AM I just realized this the other day, but why are gnolls humaniod instead of montrous humaniods?
TheAngryFish
06-09-07, 12:10 AM Gnolls, lizardfolk and troglodytes; they're all humanoids. If you don't like it you're a heretic and you're excommunicated.
bahamut920
06-09-07, 01:06 AM Not particularly helpful, AngryFish. He's asking why gnolls are humanoid.

I guess the designers at WotC decided that they were better off as humanoids (they were Monstrous in 3.0. And, I think, Large.) I honestly don't know why, because gnolls share more in common with monstrous humanoids like minotaurs, goatfolk, yak folk, etc. I think the clincher might be that they're Medium, but I think that goatfolk are Medium, too.
sensestaker
06-09-07, 01:11 AM :confused: Who knows? I think that qualifying as a non-monstrous humanoid is at least SOMEWHAT tied to two features: low HD-3 or fewer-and minimal wierdness-usually just appearance, no major special powers.
bahamut920
06-09-07, 01:34 AM Again, I point you to the goatfolk. Medium size, low HD, and few real special abilities. They appear just as monstrous as gnolls, perhaps less, because people don't think of goats as dangerous animals, as opposed to large canines. However, they are monstrous humanoids, and gnolls are humanoid.
sensestaker
06-09-07, 01:55 AM Again, I point you to the goatfolk. Medium size, low HD, and few real special abilities. They appear just as monstrous as gnolls, perhaps less, because people don't think of goats as dangerous animals, as opposed to large canines. However, they are monstrous humanoids, and gnolls are humanoid.

I know there are a couple exceptions exceptions (yes, the ibixian is one, and troglodyte stench is precariously close to a wierd ability), but as a general rule of thumb, it's fairly consistant. A good example are lizardfolk-no real wierd abilities for any of the 3 types, but standard (2 hd, size M) and poisondusk (1 hd, size S) are humanoids, while blackscale (4 hd, size L) are monstrous humanoids. So I guess size L+ is also a consideration for Mon. Hum.

Amongst our Monstrous Humanoids are 4+ HD, wierd abilities, size L+, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. :D
Deveral
06-09-07, 02:27 AM It could be because gnoll was a commonly used race for PC's before 3.5, I dont know because I started playing at the end of 3.0 and the DM at the time only allowed base races. Maybe they didnt want to give an unfair advantage to players playing a gnoll while others were playing a human or gnome. Also, maybe they didnt feel like gnoll could qualify for PrC's that require monstrous humanoids, such as Soul Eater. Just my 2 cents.
Elzaban the Ethereal
06-09-07, 10:49 AM I guess the designers at WotC decided that they were better off as humanoids (they were Monstrous in 3.0. And, I think, Large.)

Gnolls were still Medium-sized Humanoid (Gnoll) back in 3.0, and they were still the same size back in 1e. Back then they also looked more humanoid, or at least, they did in the 1e Monster Manual, which could be why they remained humanoid in 3e (which mostly gave monstrous humanoid type to ones that had features that were a bit too different, such that they couldn't pass for humanoid).

On the whole, though, they lose out in power to the other prime 2 HD, +1 LA contender, the Lizardfolk. I don't think it'd be unbalanced to change their type to Monstrous Humanoid, to make them a bit better as PCs and as foes. I've had a few DM's who have done so (although some of them did so with Lizardfolk and the like, too).
skio
06-09-07, 11:42 AM Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well.

So why gnolls and lizardfolk are plain humanoids?

IMHO the answer is that INCOSISTENCY is unfortunately a great problem of DnD as whole. What DnD lacks is common criteria that define every single aspect of the game, that, as it is obvious, do not currently exist.

How than can one find balance in the chaos?

(this is called ranting... sorry :( )
AnduirAbersand
06-09-07, 12:05 PM Okay, so if what that one guy said is true: They used to be human-like, moreso than the Goatfolk(Ibixians?) thus they kept it consistent? And the iconical image just changed more beastial as time passed?

But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO.
Jeriaus
06-09-07, 04:09 PM The onlt reason i can think of is it would make themtoo easy for rangers to kill, but thats about it...:mad:
Finfreeze
06-10-07, 03:20 PM To be honest, it's just another idiosyncrasy of the type system, just like how giant gorillas and eagles with spell resistance are outsiders and transparent flying brains are monstrous humanoids. It's also interesting how "X Person" spells work on bipedal hyenas and certain bipedal lizards and fish—as well as humans and elves—but not on overgrown humans (giants and half-giants), immortal humans (elan), other bipedal lizards and fish (including sahuagin and blackscale lizardfolk), feral humans, super elves (LeShay), and most humanoids with angelic, demonic, or draconic blood (or rough equivalents thereof).

The type system is a peeve of mine.
Lady Maedhros
06-10-07, 05:07 PM But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO.

Not me. I do it the other way around - if it has no (su) or (sp) entries, it's a humanoid. (Except minotaurs - they're giants IMC, though IMC giant is a subtype of humanoid*, so still). Ibixians, gnolls, lizardfolk of all stripes, all humanoid.

Also owlbears are animal (dire) rather than magical beast. Cuz wtf? What is magical about an owlbear? Its creation? If I create food and water it's not magical bread. :rant:

Anyway. I try to make things consistent. Monstrous is for multiple limbs, odd shapes (tauric for example), and inherent magic. Humanoid is for not. The LA is a separate issue (gnolls shouldn't have one, but that's got nothing to do with their type).

*Cuz of the charm person thing, mostly. But the two types are almost identical already anyway - automatic low-light and weapon profs are the only difference - so I really don't get why they're different in the first place.
AMGriffin
06-10-07, 05:37 PM Gnolls could quite easily pass as monstrous humanoids, what separates them from minotaurs anyway? Same applies to Lizardfolk.
amethal
06-10-07, 06:57 PM IMC giant is a subtype of humanoidThat's what they do in Green Ronin's True20, although True20 doesn't have any of the "person" spells so its less of an issue.

So, in your campaign could I play an ogre or similar (humanoid - giant) and have a friendly wizard cast enlarge person on me to become huge?
Potato_Dragon
06-10-07, 09:08 PM Personally I think they should get rid of the giant and monstrous humanoid types altogether and just make a few more humanoid subtypes. Then gnolls would be something like "humanoid (beastial)" and would share that type with minotaurs and ibixians because they're based off mammals. We'd end up with:

Aquatic humanoids (ampibians/fish)
Beastial humanoids (mammals)
Dragonblood humanoids (kobolds, etc.)
Giant humanoids (giants)
Hag humanoids (hags)
Reptillian humanoids (reptiles)
Verminous humanoids (invertebrates)

Or maybe you could just consider hags to be giants, even when they're medium-sized, so we wouldn't end up with a rarely-used subtype. Anyway, did I leave anything significant out? Oh, wait, gargoyles. Couldn't they just be elementals or magical beasts or something?
Lady Maedhros
06-10-07, 10:52 PM That's what they do in Green Ronin's True20, although True20 doesn't have any of the "person" spells so its less of an issue.

So, in your campaign could I play an ogre or similar (humanoid - giant) and have a friendly wizard cast enlarge person on me to become huge?

You'd have to do some pretty damned fast talking to play the ogre in the first place, but yes, you could indeed do that. Since the only place that would be much use to you is out on the open taiga, where you're pretty much fighting another giant or a remorhaz or a dragon anyway, it's not as impressive as it sounds. And it just makes you that much more dangerous to your party when you get charm person'd. :)

Gargoyles could pass for magical beasts. And there's definitely merit in consolidating stuff like that. As is, multiple subsets of humanoid are basically a form of free immunity from certain game effects - who buys a halfling bane sword or takes asherati as a favored enemy?
Potato_Dragon
06-11-07, 12:49 AM ...On second thought, scratch "dragonblood", there probably aren't enough of them. Just make them Reptillians. Hags should probably be Giants anyway, since they're superhumanly strong. Hmm, since there are no often-used halfling variants (unlike, say, drow for elf variants), probably one should make them goblins. ;) Okay, no, gnomes then? Uhh, it would probably make more sense to make gnomes a subrace of dwarves (not that I'm suggesting anyone do that). Uhhh... I don't know. Maybe being virtually immune to bane effects is a special ability of halflings then? Or maybe we just need more gnoll rangers with favored enemy: halfling and halfling bane weapons. That would be a nasty surprise for the players. I mean, if the gnoll happens to live near halfling territory, why wouldn't it do that?

Edit: Wait, I have a better idea. Make them humans. Little ones.
SilverFoxKnows
06-11-07, 05:02 PM When I write them up as bad guys I make them Monstrous Humanoid. Same goes for all the animal-head people. But I give them Low Light instead of Darkvision, seems more natural. Most animals need some kind of light.

Frank
Baduk
06-12-07, 11:22 AM "Gnoll Ranger with Favoured Enemy: Halfing with a Halfling Bane Scimitar"

*writes that down*
after RHoD that halfling wizard is going to get HURT
Nephallim
06-12-07, 05:07 PM Has anyone brought up the fact of simple statistics? humanoid type has medium base attack bonus progression while monstrous humanoid has high base attack porgression. Its all in how nasty you want to make the monster. Gnolls are hyena men. Hyenas are scavengers. Thus, no apparent need for them to have a high BAB. Minotaurs, on the other hand, are giant, cunning, angry bull-men. I think that justifies a high BAB, and thus monstrous humanoid.
Lady Maedhros
06-12-07, 05:40 PM Or you could just give them more hit dice.

Yes, that makes them even more unplayable as PCs, but minos are unplayable as PCs anyway. It's not like it would make them any more immune to sleep, or whatever.
koiulpoi
06-12-07, 06:10 PM Okay, so if what that one guy said is true: They used to be human-like, moreso than the Goatfolk(Ibixians?) thus they kept it consistent? And the iconical image just changed more beastial as time passed?

But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO.

They also have 2 racial hit dice, which means they blow for just about any character. It's like having an LA of 3 where two of your LA are taken up by some weak hitpoints, BAB, and reflex saves. Sounds not worth it to me, considering Half-Fey is a +2 LA.

Of course, you do have an advantage for spells and effects that work off of hit dice, but the point is - Lizardfolk still suck.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jeriaus 06-09-07, 12:00 AM	I just realized this the other day, but why are gnolls humaniod instead of montrous humaniods?
TheAngryFish 06-09-07, 12:10 AM	Gnolls, lizardfolk and troglodytes; they're all humanoids. If you don't like it you're a heretic and you're excommunicated.
bahamut920 06-09-07, 01:06 AM	Not particularly helpful, AngryFish. He's asking why gnolls are humanoid. I guess the designers at WotC decided that they were better off as humanoids (they were Monstrous in 3.0. And, I think, Large.) I honestly don't know why, because gnolls share more in common with monstrous humanoids like minotaurs, goatfolk, yak folk, etc. I think the clincher might be that they're Medium, but I think that goatfolk are Medium, too.
sensestaker 06-09-07, 01:11 AM	:confused: Who knows? I think that qualifying as a non-monstrous humanoid is at least SOMEWHAT tied to two features: low HD-3 or fewer-and minimal wierdness-usually just appearance, no major special powers.
bahamut920 06-09-07, 01:34 AM	Again, I point you to the goatfolk. Medium size, low HD, and few real special abilities. They appear just as monstrous as gnolls, perhaps less, because people don't think of goats as dangerous animals, as opposed to large canines. However, they are monstrous humanoids, and gnolls are humanoid.
sensestaker 06-09-07, 01:55 AM	Again, I point you to the goatfolk. Medium size, low HD, and few real special abilities. They appear just as monstrous as gnolls, perhaps less, because people don't think of goats as dangerous animals, as opposed to large canines. However, they are monstrous humanoids, and gnolls are humanoid. I know there are a couple exceptions exceptions (yes, the ibixian is one, and troglodyte stench is precariously close to a wierd ability), but as a general rule of thumb, it's fairly consistant. A good example are lizardfolk-no real wierd abilities for any of the 3 types, but standard (2 hd, size M) and poisondusk (1 hd, size S) are humanoids, while blackscale (4 hd, size L) are monstrous humanoids. So I guess size L+ is also a consideration for Mon. Hum. Amongst our Monstrous Humanoids are 4+ HD, wierd abilities, size L+, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. :D
Deveral 06-09-07, 02:27 AM	It could be because gnoll was a commonly used race for PC's before 3.5, I dont know because I started playing at the end of 3.0 and the DM at the time only allowed base races. Maybe they didnt want to give an unfair advantage to players playing a gnoll while others were playing a human or gnome. Also, maybe they didnt feel like gnoll could qualify for PrC's that require monstrous humanoids, such as Soul Eater. Just my 2 cents.
Elzaban the Ethereal 06-09-07, 10:49 AM	I guess the designers at WotC decided that they were better off as humanoids (they were Monstrous in 3.0. And, I think, Large.) Gnolls were still Medium-sized Humanoid (Gnoll) back in 3.0, and they were still the same size back in 1e. Back then they also looked more humanoid, or at least, they did in the 1e Monster Manual, which could be why they remained humanoid in 3e (which mostly gave monstrous humanoid type to ones that had features that were a bit too different, such that they couldn't pass for humanoid). On the whole, though, they lose out in power to the other prime 2 HD, +1 LA contender, the Lizardfolk. I don't think it'd be unbalanced to change their type to Monstrous Humanoid, to make them a bit better as PCs and as foes. I've had a few DM's who have done so (although some of them did so with Lizardfolk and the like, too).
skio 06-09-07, 11:42 AM	Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. So why gnolls and lizardfolk are plain humanoids? IMHO the answer is that INCOSISTENCY is unfortunately a great problem of DnD as whole. What DnD lacks is common criteria that define every single aspect of the game, that, as it is obvious, do not currently exist. How than can one find balance in the chaos? (this is called ranting... sorry :( )
AnduirAbersand 06-09-07, 12:05 PM	Okay, so if what that one guy said is true: They used to be human-like, moreso than the Goatfolk(Ibixians?) thus they kept it consistent? And the iconical image just changed more beastial as time passed? But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO.
Jeriaus 06-09-07, 04:09 PM	The onlt reason i can think of is it would make themtoo easy for rangers to kill, but thats about it...:mad:
Finfreeze 06-10-07, 03:20 PM	To be honest, it's just another idiosyncrasy of the type system, just like how giant gorillas and eagles with spell resistance are outsiders and transparent flying brains are monstrous humanoids. It's also interesting how "X Person" spells work on bipedal hyenas and certain bipedal lizards and fish—as well as humans and elves—but not on overgrown humans (giants and half-giants), immortal humans (elan), other bipedal lizards and fish (including sahuagin and blackscale lizardfolk), feral humans, super elves (LeShay), and most humanoids with angelic, demonic, or draconic blood (or rough equivalents thereof). The type system is a peeve of mine.
Lady Maedhros 06-10-07, 05:07 PM	But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO. Not me. I do it the other way around - if it has no (su) or (sp) entries, it's a humanoid. (Except minotaurs - they're giants IMC, though IMC giant is a subtype of humanoid, so still). Ibixians, gnolls, lizardfolk of all stripes, all humanoid. Also owlbears are animal (dire) rather than magical beast. Cuz wtf? What is magical about an owlbear? Its creation? If I create food and water it's not magical bread. :rant: Anyway. I try to make things consistent. Monstrous is for multiple limbs, odd shapes (tauric for example), and inherent magic. Humanoid is for not. The LA is a separate issue (gnolls shouldn't have one, but that's got nothing to do with their type). Cuz of the charm person thing, mostly. But the two types are almost identical already anyway - automatic low-light and weapon profs are the only difference - so I really don't get why they're different in the first place.
AMGriffin 06-10-07, 05:37 PM	Gnolls could quite easily pass as monstrous humanoids, what separates them from minotaurs anyway? Same applies to Lizardfolk.
amethal 06-10-07, 06:57 PM	IMC giant is a subtype of humanoidThat's what they do in Green Ronin's True20, although True20 doesn't have any of the "person" spells so its less of an issue. So, in your campaign could I play an ogre or similar (humanoid - giant) and have a friendly wizard cast enlarge person on me to become huge?
Potato_Dragon 06-10-07, 09:08 PM	Personally I think they should get rid of the giant and monstrous humanoid types altogether and just make a few more humanoid subtypes. Then gnolls would be something like "humanoid (beastial)" and would share that type with minotaurs and ibixians because they're based off mammals. We'd end up with: Aquatic humanoids (ampibians/fish) Beastial humanoids (mammals) Dragonblood humanoids (kobolds, etc.) Giant humanoids (giants) Hag humanoids (hags) Reptillian humanoids (reptiles) Verminous humanoids (invertebrates) Or maybe you could just consider hags to be giants, even when they're medium-sized, so we wouldn't end up with a rarely-used subtype. Anyway, did I leave anything significant out? Oh, wait, gargoyles. Couldn't they just be elementals or magical beasts or something?
Lady Maedhros 06-10-07, 10:52 PM	That's what they do in Green Ronin's True20, although True20 doesn't have any of the "person" spells so its less of an issue. So, in your campaign could I play an ogre or similar (humanoid - giant) and have a friendly wizard cast enlarge person on me to become huge? You'd have to do some pretty damned fast talking to play the ogre in the first place, but yes, you could indeed do that. Since the only place that would be much use to you is out on the open taiga, where you're pretty much fighting another giant or a remorhaz or a dragon anyway, it's not as impressive as it sounds. And it just makes you that much more dangerous to your party when you get charm person'd. :) Gargoyles could pass for magical beasts. And there's definitely merit in consolidating stuff like that. As is, multiple subsets of humanoid are basically a form of free immunity from certain game effects - who buys a halfling bane sword or takes asherati as a favored enemy?
Potato_Dragon 06-11-07, 12:49 AM	...On second thought, scratch "dragonblood", there probably aren't enough of them. Just make them Reptillians. Hags should probably be Giants anyway, since they're superhumanly strong. Hmm, since there are no often-used halfling variants (unlike, say, drow for elf variants), probably one should make them goblins. ;) Okay, no, gnomes then? Uhh, it would probably make more sense to make gnomes a subrace of dwarves (not that I'm suggesting anyone do that). Uhhh... I don't know. Maybe being virtually immune to bane effects is a special ability of halflings then? Or maybe we just need more gnoll rangers with favored enemy: halfling and halfling bane weapons. That would be a nasty surprise for the players. I mean, if the gnoll happens to live near halfling territory, why wouldn't it do that? Edit: Wait, I have a better idea. Make them humans. Little ones.
SilverFoxKnows 06-11-07, 05:02 PM	When I write them up as bad guys I make them Monstrous Humanoid. Same goes for all the animal-head people. But I give them Low Light instead of Darkvision, seems more natural. Most animals need some kind of light. Frank
Baduk 06-12-07, 11:22 AM	"Gnoll Ranger with Favoured Enemy: Halfing with a Halfling Bane Scimitar" writes that down after RHoD that halfling wizard is going to get HURT
Nephallim 06-12-07, 05:07 PM	Has anyone brought up the fact of simple statistics? humanoid type has medium base attack bonus progression while monstrous humanoid has high base attack porgression. Its all in how nasty you want to make the monster. Gnolls are hyena men. Hyenas are scavengers. Thus, no apparent need for them to have a high BAB. Minotaurs, on the other hand, are giant, cunning, angry bull-men. I think that justifies a high BAB, and thus monstrous humanoid.
Lady Maedhros 06-12-07, 05:40 PM	Or you could just give them more hit dice. Yes, that makes them even more unplayable as PCs, but minos are unplayable as PCs anyway. It's not like it would make them any more immune to sleep, or whatever.
koiulpoi 06-12-07, 06:10 PM	Okay, so if what that one guy said is true: They used to be human-like, moreso than the Goatfolk(Ibixians?) thus they kept it consistent? And the iconical image just changed more beastial as time passed? But we all agree: They should be changed to Monstrous Humanoid, to put them on par with Lizardfolk, which pwn for LA+1 creatures, IMHO. They also have 2 racial hit dice, which means they blow for just about any character. It's like having an LA of 3 where two of your LA are taken up by some weak hitpoints, BAB, and reflex saves. Sounds not worth it to me, considering Half-Fey is a +2 LA. Of course, you do have an advantage for spells and effects that work off of hit dice, but the point is - Lizardfolk still suck.